Splash 15 ch04 Self Defense
From C64 Diskmag Wiki
Revision as of 17:32, 22 June 2007 by Ymgve
SELF DEFENSE okey,in fact having to write do wn such a chapter was not ment to happen in any splash as we wanted to stay 'objective' but people as- ked us to do it...sorry for that! anyway...first of all we should spent a few words to some of our very beloved friends that seemed so much annoyed about our opinions and felt themselves so easy to at- tack splash.in fact a mag,especia- lly splash certainly isn't the place to discuss such a matter as we at least TRY TO BE OBJECTIVE, but since all the trouble was men- tioned in their very own mags,it's certainly not our responsibility to put this funny and CHILDISH manner on this stage. the problem comes from the 'mag reviews' chapter of splash 12 whe- re internal was reviewed.the prob- lem is not only the internal revi- ew;remix of clique didn't also li- ke my(the bus)ideas about mag out- fits that he felt himself to com- ment on that.now look,in there it was not written as: "the lamest thing that a mag can do is to take graphics and musics from other groups" but... "...of course some graphics and musics can be made by other people out of the group but if all musics are composed and ALL graphics are drawn by others(even if they are exclusive),that's what i call lame CHANGING the words into the di- rection you like won't bring you any use;the truth lies so clearly that you can't fake it.those two sentences are completely different and even if they look like the sa- me,there's a very critical diffe- rence summaried by the word ALL! i had written those sentences after reading someone saying that everyone could make a mag and see- ing a mag that was completely done by other group members(even the CODE) so i wanted to say that if u want to call a mag YOURS then it must have been done by you.that's the same for the demos i think. i- magine a demo by acy containing g- raphics,musics and coding by other people,isn't it lame? intros are more flexible but mags should be considered the same way i bet.per- haps it would better to mention co ding there but i didn't want to point that mag,as the names're not important! certainly script wasn't thought to be attacted there,i had not seen any issues since the 10th one,your mag didn't even come to my mind.and if i wanted to mean you,well,you are the latest one in this scene that we will be af- raid of,people are less scared f- rom the things that they know many things about... also,there's no place that we said "we are the best in turkiye" (yes,in most intros mr.dj writes: the very best acy(tr not mentioned ) but so what?we also call oursel- ves 'awful' and who does not write things like'we rule',we kick ass?) during the past two years,because in order to use the adjectives li- ke "better" or "the best of..." there should be some other groups to compare with.clique has never seen seen as a rival from our po- int of view in any sort of activi- vity.we are a cracking and a demo group that usually does a lot than releasing a mag once a while.and certainly there's one point you're right about.we certainly do not care much about the scene. imagine we are the top in the cracking gr- oup charts,"so what?" it won't br- ing anything to us.and we are not doing this job to enter the charts only.if we DID SO,there would be NO reason for us to stay in the s- cene for 3.5 years,got it? yes mate,acting matured is not talking about it.for example,one way is not forgetting what you've said: "i know it's lame to say,'vote for us',but please see the amount of work we put in this mag and vo- ve for us if you think we really deserve it!" this kind of stuff was repeated over and over on the days that ma- ny people could not see script be- cause of a coding problem and scr- ipt fell of the charts.remember? "there has never been any time that i asked people to vote for script..." from script 14 well remix,we will certainly be respectful to your opinions but please make it clear,which one is yours? there are some other points i want to express.in the mag reviews part of splash 12,there was no ac- cusation or blaming to any mag or any group.you seem to have looked quite hard to find something to get pissed off and finally you've found it,but that is your problem. you have answered the accusations that weren't made against anybody, even internal.so,you felt yourself very free to comment on that and even leaving your objectivity asi- de for the first time!(ha-ha-ha) choosing the hardest words pos- sible and then saying "this is not attcking or slagging" is no diffe- rent than smacking one on the eye, and saying "take it easy,i didn't mean to hurt you at all".got it? that's not a MATURED behaviour at all.you looked very like a little bully who's waiting anyone to do something which he can make up a fight out of it.the point we could not understand why you waited so long to do that.perhaps,we weren't worth before,but since splash is in the charts now,you decided that this is the time! here i want cle- ar that there's no reason for you to worry about us,we are the fly that will irritate but won't harm! take splash easy... there's a last thing to say for you that there wasn't such a sen- tence in the review as "long editorials are lame..." leave the sentence,there wasn't even a mean to that! i just comp- lained that the editorials conta- ined so much useless text that one missed the useful stuff that was contained within the pages.and a- gain it was about internal's edi- torial,not about script,got it? i don't think that"long editorials are crap" but writing useless text through the editorial and the mag just to have more 'blocks of text' is crap! and this is MY opinion. why do you care so much? yes dude,you kept on saying th- at you do not care about the scene at all but a single review in spl- ash made you explode,you wasted da valuable space for us just trying to give some comment on that.leave the things about yourself,you even care so much about things bother- ing other people.we do not give da half of the care you give to the scene.we do our work and do not care about what you or other peop- le are busy with.it's the friend- ship(familiar word?) we gain thro- ugh swapping that makes us produce something.of course,you can say"we all should do this for fun"and la- ter spend tragic words like "don't swap originals" but our way of fr- iendship is much more different. those people doing splash are not interested in being MEGA-TOP-ELITE in anyway,leave first release cra- cking... so remix,stop acting mr.smart, that's the way one looks so child- ish.the upper words're all answers to your 'accusations' made through script 14.we usually don't give a damn what people'think'about us, but your words gave us the right to defend ourselves(n'even myself) you were wrong and you had to be corrected. of course,we don't say we know better than you do,we can not for sure.you know the best,you do the best and you are the one that's entitled to comment on anything you like as your ideas shine.. u like BUT THE LAMERS IN ACCURACY CER- TAINLY DON'T NEED YOUR PREACHES, KEEP IT FOR YOURSELF! so, you should understand that we love the peace you want to MAKE US RUIN and what ever you do,it will not be enough... this is not the anti note you wanted to have,this is the answer you needed to have... anyway,now more about internal: firstly,after seeing the things matt/wow wrote in internal 17,i sent him a letter which i also to- ld him that we would not make a seperate chapter for this matter. but,after having read the things remix/clique wrote,there were a lot of things to say,and they wo- uld take so much space in any ot- her chapter,so this became a chap- ter itself. before all,i want to excuse for reviewing their mag,but i did not know that they didn't want anyone to review their mag.in the inter- nal i was there ain't such a thing ,perhaps i missed it through all the mess. look,in the review i made,there is no sort of an attack against internal.from the things you have wrote,i got a feeling that you either haven't read my review pro- perly or you have some kind of an understanding problem. i did not say that "internal editorial is crap" or "long edito- rials are lame" i have just told that the mag, and the editorial is full of so much useless text that the reader can miss anything worth to read, got it? i told that filling the mag with useless text just in or- der to have 'more blocks of text' is crap.understand? and this is my idea,a SUBJECTIVE approach. and about objectivity,there is the point that made me think you have not read it properly,there i have said: "objectivity:here's a point that i can not say anything.the editors aren't interested in being object- ive.i have to CONGRAGULATE them for this original and personal id- ea but this DOESN'T mean that i AGREE with them.and since they kept on saying that they are a %99 subjective mag i cannot give some- thing higher than %1..." isn't this so clear.i apprecia- ted them for their approach but i do not have to agree.this is a ve- ry democratic comment eh? i also told them that they sh- ould KEEP ON THEIR WAY if they li- ke to.splash 12 is here,anyone can ask for it to see the plain truth. and the review of the mag certain- ly shows my personal values,even if you don't like them,you've to show some kind of respect. about objectivity,yes,we belie- ve that a mag should have it but that's something hard to achieve.. according to me no mag today is quite objective(including us,i'd give something like 70-80).but old corruption and mamba certainly did it well.anyhow,this is a way people try not to take any sides when commenting on something,and even NOT COMMENTING.see,revieving something without any personal va- lues is hard,so it reflects the ideas of the reviewer,and you sho- uldn't care so much pals... if they didn't grow the matter with writing a special chapter a- gainst us,i wouldn't be bothering to answer back.but,it's the child- ish behaviour,the editors kept on showing that left us no chance el- se. eistenin/wow's words were quite reasonable,but he certainly didn't read the review and i believe he would take care of the others if he did.(so don't believe what ot- hers are telling you pal,including remix...) but,there's a point i could not understand...eistein re- commended us not to make mag revi- ews and told that people should de cide themselves what to think abo- ut a mag! nice approach,and a cre- ative critisizm.but then,imagine my surprise when i saw that there was a chapter in internal(same is- sue) with MAG REVIEWS!!! strange or what...you did the thing you recommended us not to do! in fact the trouble comes out of the problem that people can not take critisizm.a review is a revi- ew and you must not care so much as you did.for example,our mag has been reviewed many times,even with the worst comments,even with pre- jeduces.but we have never reacted on any of them in anyway.who cares for which reason? the thing that made me write those words are the crap written by matt of wow in internal 17.you must be ashamed of the aggressive and childish manner you have show- ed pal! in fact i've told you in the letter so i won't be writing much more,if you wanna slow down, read the review again(perhaps you can understand that there's no at- tacking there).i also tried hard to explain all the crap here,so i won't be writing more.enough! so come on everybody and res- pect each other's opinions! the boss / accuracy from splash staff hey hey ! here's mr.dj of accu- racy to bring you a last minute note... some minutes ago the boss called me and told that he got a letter today from matt/wow where he wrote that he was sorry coz there was nothing more than just a misunderstood. so the problems are solved. i thank my old pal matt coz now i'm glad to see the prob is over before it get bigger!